Talk:Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Law (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Editing Zeran[edit]

FYI - I'm currently working on a major overhaul of the Zeran v. AOL article so it's no longer a stub. I don't have time right now to work on this article too, but I thought I would mention it here, in case anybody wants to pull material from that article and post it here as a summary. From what I understand Z v. A is very important to Section 230. That material should be posted by the end of today (pacific time).

Other Countries[edit]

Can we have links to versions of this law in other countries? I would add them if I knew what they were. I'm particularly interested in the state of things in Britain. A5 11:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Craigslist Basis for a 230 Defense[edit]

Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill, LLC and Gucci America, Inc. v. Hall & Associates distinguish that the 230 Defense applies only to tort liability.

Congress recognized the threat that tort-based lawsuits pose to freedom of speech in the new and burgeoning Internet medium. The imposition of tort liability on service providers for the communications of others represented, for Congress, simply another form of intrusive government regulation of speech....
Congress made a policy choice ... not to deter harmful online speech through the separate route of imposing tort liability on companies that serve as intermediaries for other parties' potentially injurious messages.
Id. at 330-31 (emphasis added). The Zeran quotation, in context, refers to defamation and other forms of tort liability. The instant claims are grounded in the law of intellectual property and, therefore, do not, on a motion to dismiss, implicate Section 230 immunity. Gucci America, Inc. v. Hall & Associates 135 F.Supp.2d 409,415 (S.D.N.Y.,2001)

The suit brought against Craigslist does not plead liability under a tort, but instead under civil rights violations enforced under the FHA. This seems like another opportunity for the court to distinguish the overbroad language of section 230 as a non-defense under the FHA.

Civil rights claims as tort claims[edit]

Begging to differ with the comment that the Craigslist FHA case doesn't plead liability under a tort, note that federal civil rights claims are treated as tort claims, or at least analogized to tort claims, for statute of limitations purposes, as an "injury to personal rights." Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261 (1985) 14:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)MerileeNC

Help with formating[edit]

Could someone help with formating & citation for Barret v. Rosenthal? I am wiped out, but at least got it added here. It's a CA Supreme Court case pubilshed last month, on Section 230. Thank you!Jance 03:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Section 230 and Wikipedia[edit]

Is this self reference really needed? Is Wikipedia actually such a significant part of the subject of section 230 that it justifies our preference no the mention ourselves in articles? Now if Wikipedia was a major part of the subject I could see it, but there must be hundreds of other examples we can use. I suggest the section be removed, you don't see other encyclopedias slipping in mentions of themselves when the subject crosses paths with them. 1 != 2 14:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind seeing the section broadened to talk about several prominent websites (and different types of websites) and the role that section 230 has in their everyday conduct, though I grant that a section that mentions Wikipedia only is lopsided.--Father Goose (talk) 21:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Anticipated edits[edit]

I plan on editing this page over the next few weeks in connection with --Boalt2761 (talk) 21:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

So far so good. Do you see a suitable place to add some of this material back in?--Father Goose (talk) 02:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Can you fix the page title? The statutory reference is 47 USC 230, but it is Section 509 of the Communications Decency Act Ericgoldman (talk) 02:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


Not only is the titling of the page incorrect, but the page should also probably discuss 230(c)(2), which doesn't have as many cases interpreting it but is an important part of the immunity. Ericgoldman (talk) 06:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Three Tiers of Liability is Misleading[edit]

This whole page needs revamping, but the three tiers of liability described by Madeleine Rodriguez's article is misleading at best. I propose ripping out the entire discussion of her article, which is more harmful than helpful. Ericgoldman (talk) 02:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)